E 436 




'^^H 


m^i 




1 




.■:/;!;Si!i!i!|j 




1 


§ 


!■ 


1 








^ 



o. •TTt" .,0 



ftl' <i, -.T"»S*i^- ^0 



-.^BT*' ^C* 



'^ - • • O AV 








^^^-^^^ 






9s' ■y 



5P^^ 






:«■ •>'■*: 



>*^ 



O. 











^^U.c.'S' 





%/ .*^K- ■%/' .•^■; ^w*" 






.4°^ 




'bV 







♦^^0^ 
.^^ 



HO^ 




a9 ^ ''^ -i*^ 







'^•6' 
.^^ 






^•/ X^^^^'J" ^oJ^^*j> \/^f!^\^ 






&-\ A*^'> A-'^mkS. /''}^'T' 


















-^ 




SPEECH 

j/ OF 

HON.¥. B. STOKES, OF TENNESSEE, 

,, • ' 0>f THE 

ELECTION OF SPEAKER. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 7, ISCO. 



\ 
The House having imder consideration the election of Speaker, Yn-. STOKES \ 

said: 

I desire, Mr. Cleric, to submit a few remarks to the Hoiise. I liave not, it is 
well known to the House, troubled it since I came here, and I would not now 
attempt to address the House, but for the fact that, upon the Democratic side 
of the House, allusion has been repeatedly made to the question, which party 
is responsibe for the non-org.nizatiou of this House? I desire to allude briefly 
to the position of the different parties hei'e. My honorable fiiend fi'om Mississippi 
(Mr. Davis) lias made a very persuasive speech this morning ; and I commend 
that gentleman highly for it. I think it one of the best speeches I have heard 
upon this floor. There is more reason and jdausibilitj- in it than in any I have 
heard. He has made some propositions that seem fair, which 1 will allude to 
before I take my seat. 

Now, what did we find to be the state of parties four or five weeks ago? 
When we first entered this Chamber we found four political parties here. There 
were the South Autierieans, the anti-Lecomptou Democrats, and the Democrats 
proper, as they are termed; and there was on tlie other side of the House the 
Republican party. Where do we find the Republican party standing? We 
find they are standing here to-day a great sectional party, upon the question 
of slaveV}' and in regard to the rights of the South. How is it M'itii the anti- 
Lecompton Democrats? They are cut loose from the Democrats proper; they 
are in opposition to the present Adniinistration; they are a parly by them- 
selves. The Democratic party proper came here with eighty-odd votes. 

My friend from Mississippi (Mr. D.wis) this morning said that they area 
practical party, and asked us why we did not come over and join that national 
Democratic party. 1 have some misgivings upon that question ; I have some 
doubts as to the nationality of the Democratic party. Why do 1 say so ? I have 
proof to sustain me in the assertion I have made. AV hether it is valid, and whether 
it is relialile or not, it is not for me to say ; but if reliance is to be jilaced upon 
the leading organs of tliat party, it is valid and reliable, and I intend to submit 
whatever remarks I make, fairly, honestly, and respectfully to every gentleman 
of this House. What do we find in a leading Democratic paper, published in 
this city, but a few months ago? Why, one the Democratic organs at Wash- 
ington, tlie States, propounded this question : "Have we a Democratic party 
among us?" And proceeds to answer it thus: 

"The doubt implied in the above interrogatory, however startling at first sight, ajjiioars 
anything but absurd, on examination. Nay, at the hazard of contradieting tlie vulgar preju- 
dice and shocking our own sense of security, we are obliged to announce the di'libcrntu con- 
clusion that there is now no Democratic party in existence." 

There is one of the witnesses. What else? The Washington Union says: 

" It is certainly true that if we were to look for evidences of the existence of a Dctnocratic 
party in Congress, we could net discover it by an analysis of the votes of nienibers on any 
measure, or any number or series of measures tliul lias been before that body tor u long time. 

"Ambitious eombinalious are the eurso of the Democratic party. Tbey have t(ihUe<l its in- 
tegrit!/, demoralized it, weakened it, and rendered it a doubtful antagonist even against the 
open enemies of the Union. They have stricken down and degraded all broaO, liberal, com- 
prehensive statesmanship. They have substituted W\n mUeruole. iUcrcof of (h»iiiffogiie.i tot 
those great jirineiples under which alone the industry of our country can be developed.'" " 

"Tlieyare great men with independent political estates and expectations. We have too 
many of them. They exercise too much power. They would control the Democratic parly. 
They /(are controlled it, unlil its forces are scattered, its counsels unheeded, and its 2'0W6r 
coiitemptible." , j 

/ A / '--». ' / V^ I, 

/i />.:■■/, ^ ' Printed by Lemuel Towers. * ■ ^ 



t"!^ 



^1 



A Memeer on the Democratic side. That was last Congress, when we were 
very much split. 

Mr. STOKES. The gentleman says they were very much split, (laughter;) 
and I tliink, sir. the votes which have been cast here for Speaker proves the 
fact very cleai'ly that the party is very much "split" and torn to pieces now. 
There are two witnesses. What else? Now, the Charleston Mercurj-, one of 
leading organs of the Democratic party in the South, the authority of vrhich I 
have never heard disputed in my State 

Mr. COBB. I plead the statute of limitations. The Democratic party waa 
very much split up in the last Congress. (Laughter.) 

Mr. STOK!''S. This was written since the last Congress. 

Mr. MILKS. I did not hear the remark of the gentleman about the Charles- 
ton Mercury. 

Mr. STOKES, I say that it is regarded as a thoroughly Democratic paper, 
in full fellowship with the Democracy of the South. 

Mr. MILES. Well, of all the extraordinary statements that I liave heard 
upon tliis flcor, that is the mo.st extraordinary. (Laughter.) The Charleston 
Mercury in full fellowship and communion wilth the Democratic party! It is 
a most preposterous and extraordinary misapprehension. 

Mr. STOKES. Does the gentleman repudiate it? 

Mr. MILES. ^ ^■o, sir; it expresses my sentiments completely; but I am not 
in full fellowship with the national Democracy. (Laughter.) 

Mr. STOKES That proves what I stated "in the outset, that they sre split 
and torn into fragments, and that they cannot unite. (Renewed laughter.) 
But the gentleman says that he agrees with the Charleston Mercury. Let us 
see what he agrees to : 

" The Deraoor.itic party exis^ts only in the South. It is no longer & national party. Why 
should we not accept the true state of things, and act upon it. As a partv, it is a southern 
party, and nothing else." 

Now, does the gentleman agree to that? He .says that he agrees with the 
Charleston Mercury, and that paper says that the Democratic party is a tho- 
roughly sectional party. J regard it to-day as a sectional party. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I do not agree to that statement. 

Mr. ST0K1''.S. That still furtlier sustains my position, that they are "split" 
all to pieces." (Laughter.) I tliink that if gentleman will give me their at- 
tention, I wi!l show them that this (the Democratic) side of the House is all 
torn into fragments. 

Mr. MILES. The gentleman, I hope, will allow me to do a simple act of jus- 
tice to the national Democratic party. It has always, I think, been understood, 
since I have had the honor of a seat upon the floor of this House, that while I 
have acted with the Democratic party, where I could do so conscientiously and 
consistently with my own pecuhar views, still I have not been considered as 
one of the rank and' file of that party at all, nor do I conceive that tlie Charles- 
ton Mercury has ever been considered as an organ or exponent of the national 
Democracy. We are considered outsiders. I have frequently been told I was a 
political Arab. Well, I do not object to that sort of appellation. But while I 
do not claim coniniunion or fellowship with the national Democracy, I believe 
that that is the party which is the most Constitution loving party now iu this 
country; the one which is the most ready to support and sustain the great 
principles of the Constitution; and, therefore, as a Constitution-loving man, I 
act with that party; but I presume that I am naturally so constituted that I 
cannot exactly work in party traces. I do not know whether it is that I pos- 
sess too mn-)i individuality or independence, but I prefer acting on my own 
convictions of vvhat is right and proper. I am, therefore, not disp">?ecl to swear 
in the words of any master, which, I think, is the'^motto of that admirable paper, 
the Charleston Mercury ; but I am ready to follow a leader in whom I liave confi- 
dence, when he has a distinct proposition or practical measure to propose which 
meets my assent and concurrence. I hope the gentleman will see, therefore, 
that he is not fairly representing the DemocratTc party, when he M^ould take 
either my humble self as the exponent of their sentiments, or the Charleston 
Mercurj- as an expounder of their doctrines. 

Mr. STOKES. The gentleman does not exactly act with the Democratic 
party. He acts for himself, and votes for the man whom he tliinks he ought 
to vote for. The gentleman reminds me very much of an old gentleman with 
whom I had a personal acquaintance. He was a witness in court, and the gen- 
tleman was asked if he was acquainted with the general character of a certain 
witness who had been introduced. " Well," said he, " generally and separately 
I am, but jointly and singularly I am not." (Laughter.) He does act with 
them, and he does not act with them. 



Now, Mr. Clerk, T was i^oing on to show the disorganization of the Demo- 
cratic party I was producing the proofs which I haVe to sustain me in that 
allegation. I ha^re other proofs that I could introduce here from their iournal» 
Whether those journals express the true sentiments pf the party or not I 
am not prepared to say. If gentlemen choose to repudiate their own paner« 
and to say that their presses have not stated the truth, why then I have no 
more to say. Here are the statements in these papers, and I have not heard 
gentleman upon this side dispute their truth, and they declare this to be the 
condition of one of the political parties upon this floor.' 

My friend from Mississippi asks why the American party cannot come over 
and join heart and hand with the great national Democratic party « Why Mr 
Clerk, we cannot do that, when we have the proof staring us lA the face' and 
the evidence before us upon this floor that they are torn into fragments I 
1 come, then, to this little band of Americans— I mi2:ht call it a Spartan band— 
^ AT ^^^aV''%''^ ^""'^^^ between these extremists of\he North and the South 

Mr. DA\ lb, of Mississippi. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a ques- 
tion? He speaks of the Democratic party as a sectional party. I ask him 
■what he calls bis own party? ' ^ ^ <..k liiui 

Mr. STOKES. I will come to that, and answer the question fully before I 
take my seat. j ^^c x 

Mr DAVIS, of Mississippi. I ask the gentleman if there are any northern 
members of his party upon this floor. ^ 

Mr. STOKE,S. I will answer the gentleman fully. Now, Mr Clerk I was 
going on to speak of the American party. I stand here to-day as a member of 
the American Opposition party. I contend that it is a conservative party I 
contend that it is a great national party ; that its views are liberal and that it 
IS willing to concede to the North and to the South all their rio-ht<= ' That nar^- 
stands here to-day, few in numbers, yet powerful in strength^in other resneefs 
between the extremes of ihe North and of the South. ■ t ^°, 

My friend from Mississippi says, why not go over to them, join them and 
form a great party? Does my friend from Mississippi see tlie result of' that 
union— that it is the very thing we of the southern Opposition have been trvintr 
to prevent; the formation of a sectional party in the South ? We want no%ee 
tional party in the South ; we want no sectional pai-ty in the North • we want 
a Union party, and we stand here to-day as Union men. Up to this day not 
one of cur men has uttered a disunion sentiment. 

Mr. LAMAR. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a Question 

Mr. STOKES. Oh, certainly. ^ 

_ Mr. LAMAR. The gentlem"an says that his party requires no concession of 
right upon the part of the northern people. I ask him if Ji,> will designate 
what surrender or sacrifice of right the southern Democrats have ever exacted 
oi the northern people r 

Mr. STOKES. I will come to that directly. I have stated tliat this southern 
Opposition party stand here as a great conservative party between this north- 
ern section and this southern section. Now, what do we propose to do« We 
propose, if we were in power, to administer this Government, upon principles of 
equal and exact justice to all; to do right to all portions of the cuuntrv We 
are not secti .nal, but we are national. My friend from Jlississinpi a-^ked me 
what concession we required from the North. 

Mr. LAMAR. I hope the gentleman from Tennessee will not understand me 
as attributing to him, or to his party, any requisition upon the North not con- 
sistent with right ; but I Rik him what concession, what wronL'ful exaction 
what unconstitutional exaction of the people of the North he attributes to 
southern Democrats, or to tho?e men whom he cl.issiiies as extreme '^outh^rn 
"'*l" • ,S 'V'-^'" '^ )';"^ ^' '^^^^ "f the North that is not constitutional or rio-htf 

Mr. STOKES. I have not, as I recollect, attriliuted anything of this sort to 
the Democratic party of the South; but I will say this, that there is a feelin<- 
there is a sentiment which is, to some extent, a disunion sentiment in some °f 
the southern States; there is a secession sentiment in some of the soutb-rn 
States I liave heard more talk of disunion since I came to Washington city 
than I ever iieard in my life before; and where, I ask, has it sprung froiW 
Uhere has it originated? From whence has it been intro.iueed on this flu .r? 
1 am free to say tliat it has come from the Democratic side of tlie Hou-<e 
Mr. LAMAR. Let me just say this to the gentleman. 
Mr. STOKES. I cannot yield" further. 

1 ^^%Jr'^?^'^^!u }}'^ ^'''' g'^"^!^"!'^"''' P«'-Jo°- My only object was to dis- 
close the fact that there was less diflerence between southern gentlemen main 
taming different party relations than is generally supposed. I was eliciting 
the fact that there exists more agreement between the opposing nnrtio^ in fhl 



Soiitli than is generally supposed by those who are our comtnon enemies. I 
beg the gentleman's pardon for interrupting him. 

Sir. STOKES. I like to hear such sentiments as that. 

Mr. LAMAR. The question, then, I wish to put to the gentleman was sim- 
ply this; Whether he attributes to what is called the extreme southern De- 
mocracy any unjust or unconstitutional demands upon the northern States? 

Mr. STOKES. I will reply to the gentleman, I do not. Mr. Clerk, I have said 
thftt there was a disunion sentiment, I have heard upon this floor from some 
southern gentleman representing some of the southern States. Disunion? Why, 
sir, I will tell you tJiat the politician could not stand five minutes in the State 
I hail from, and utter that sentiment. We in Tennessee are for the Union; we 
are for tlie Constitution ; and 1 will go further, and say that it is not the posi- 
tion of the party alone with wliieh I act in Tennessee, but of the Democracy 
also. We are a unit there for the Constitution and the Union. Dissolve this 
Union ! What for ? Why, because a man is elected President of tlie United 
States, and without committing against us any overt act; because an American 
citizen is elected according to the Constitution and laws, receiving honestly 
and fairly a majority of the electoral votes of the United States, according to 
the requirements of that instrument, is that a cause for a dissolution of the 
Union ? I take the ground, as a southern man, boldly, that it is not. (Cries 
of "Good!") 

Mr. SINGLETON. I, sir, happen to be one of the number to whom the gen- 
tleman refers, who said th.at, in a certain contingency, I would be in favor of 
dissolving the Union. I did say that I was in favor of dissolving the Union 
upon tlie election of a certain man as President. 

Mr. STOKES. I am not. 

Mr. SINGLETON. Now, let me ask the gentleman from Tennessee a ques- 
tion. Suppose the people of the northern States, having the power, chose to 
elect Mr. Fred. Douglas, as a citizen of the United States, disregarding the Dred 
Scott decision ; does the gentleman think that would not be sufScient ground 
for dissolving the Union ji 

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Clerk, I reply to the gentleman from Mississippi, that 
Fred. Douglas is not a citizen of the United States ; he is a l>laek man. But, 
sir, I intended, before I took my seat, to have paid my compliments to the gen- 
tleman from Mississippi. I understood him in a speech made by him the other 
day, to declare that he would not vote for Stepuex A. Docglas if he was nomi- 
nated by the Charleston convention. 

Mr. sTNGLETGN. I did so state, and I repeat it now. 

Mr. STOKES. Weil, sir, I indorse that sentiment. But I prefer now to pro- 
ceed without further interruption. I have stated that Fred. Douglas is not a 
citizen of the United States. But any man who is recognized as such by the 
Constitution and laws, and receives, fairly and honestlj-, a majority of the 
electoral votes of the States of this Union, is entitled to the presidential chair. 
Some overt act must be committed, or I cannot agree to dissolve the Union. 
(Applause in the galleries.) 

Mr. SINGLETON. The gentleman says that Fred. Douglas is not a citizen of 
the United States ; but, in that opinion, he differs from the opinion of what I 
understand to be a very large portion of the people of the northern States. 
Now, suppose they, having the numerical majority of votes, so regarding him 
as a citizen, choose to elect him President of the United States, would you still 
be in favor of remaining in the Union ? 

Mr. STOKES. I understand the question of the gentleman, and I reply that 
the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that he is not a citizen ; 
and that, it seems to me, i^ a sufficient answer. 

Mr. LAMAR. My object is to show that there is an agreeinent between the 
gentleman and myself. 

Mr. STOKES. 'Mr. Clerk, I cannot be interrupted further. 

Mr. SMITH, of A'irgiuia. I liope our friends will allow the gentleman to 
proceed. He is a young member, and is expressing his views for the first time 
here. 

Mr. STOKES. I think that I have answered the gentleman's question. The 
Supreme Court has decided that a negro, free or slave, is not a citizen, and 
therefore cannot be President of the United States. 

Mr. SINGLETON. I do not Avant to interrupt the gentleman, but I hope 
that bA will understand me. I want to know whether he is uninformed of the 
fact that a large number of the Republican party at the North oppose that de- 
cision ? 

Ml'. STOKES. I understand that thei'e are some there whose opinions do 
not conform to that decision. 



Mr. SINGLETON. Differing from you ; suppose tliey elect liim, Avill you 
resist it or not? 

Mr. STOKES. I have answered the gentleman's question fairly and distinctly, 
that the Supreme Court has decided that a negro or African, cannot be a citi- 
zen, and that sucli a one cannot, therefore, occupy the presidential chair. Gov- 
ernor Banks, of Massachusetts, recognized this feature of that decision in a re- 
cent veto message. 

Mr. HILL. It seems to me that so remote a possibility as the one suggested 
by my friend from Mississippi, need hardly be regarded. I think that I sliall do 
no injustice to the large body of men on tlie other side, composing the Repulili- 
can party, when I say that I am willing to trust to them, that amongst them 
will be found plenty who will accept the Presidency rather than they shall be 
subjected to the humiliation of taking up a negro. (Laughter.) They are 
patriotic enough, I am sure, to prevent that degradation. 

Mr. STOKES. I was asked whether I will dissolve the Union in a cerfain 
event. 1 have answered that question. I now answer furthermore, that I will 
never, never — no never will I agree to dissolve this Union for anything, I care 
not what. (Applause in the galleries.) I am for staying in the Union at all 
hazards, and to the last extremitj-. If we have difficulties now hanging over 
us, if gloom and dai"kness surround us, let us look and see what would be the 
consequences if this Union were dissolved. What is our condition now ? 
Here Ave have the southern States with slavery. We are surrounded on one 
side with water, and on the other by the northern States — free States, and most 
of them have laws by which southern men can reclaim and take back their 
fugitive slaves. Dissolve this Union ! 

Mr. RUST. Will the gentleman permit me? (Cries, "Go on; no interrup- 
tions!") 

Mr. STOKES. I wish to make my remarks, and if gentlemeu want to reply 
to them they can do so when I have concluded — as many of them, sir, as 
choose. 

Yes, sir, we are surrounded on the north by the free States, and in most of 
them there are laws enabling the southern man to reclaim his fugitive slave. 
If we divide this Union by Mason and Dixon's line, make that the boundary 
between a northern and southern confederacy, and our difficulties would be 
tenfold, yea, a hundred fold worse than they are now. Then, when your slaves 
crossed that line of division between the North and the South, when they 
stepped over that boundary they would be as free as if their escape was into 
Canada. Now the northern States are between our limits and the British Prov- 
inces, and if a southern man loses his slave he can reclaim him. Divide this 
Union and make Mason and Dixon's line the boundary between the two confed- 
eracies, and you will have no security at all for your slave property. 

Mr. RUST. Let me ask the gentlaman a questien. 

Mr. STOKES. I prefer to go on. Now, Mr. Clerk, there is a division in the 
Democratic party in regard to the question of slavery. Is not there division 
here? Yes, sir. What about this doctrine of popular sovereignty, put forth 
by Senator Douglas? Is that the doctrine of the southern Democi'acy ? that 
the people of a Territorj", while in a territorial condition, have the legislative 
capacity to exclude or admit slavery, to manage and conti-ol in all things by 
law their dom stic affairs, embracing in all respects tiie subject of slavery. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Does the gentleman ask his question expecting it to be 
answered? (Cries of "Order!") 

Mr. STOKES. I am stating these things as I understand them. I do not 
object to interruptions from any disrespect to gentlemen, but because I want ro 
finish my remarks. If any member of the Douglas school, the Buchanan 
school, or the southern school, want to answer the reniaks of one so himible as 
myself, they can do so after I have concluded. You find, as I liave said, that 
there is great difference between Democrats in reference to this question of 
slavery. Some are for the popular sovereignty doctrine of Mr. Dm i. las, while 
others are against it. I have heard one member of the Democratic party state 
that lie would not support Mr. Douglas even if he were nominated by the 
Charleston convention. 

The doctrine put forth by Mr. Douglas has been regarded as more odious 
than any doctrine whicli has" been presented to the South. Tlie lending organ 
of the Democratic party in Tennessee — I allude to the Nashville Union — when 
it came to refer to the course of Judge Douglas and those wlio went off with 
him. bitterly denounced that doctrine. What do you lind in that l.jiding organ 
to-day ? Tliat those who went off with Douglas are morse than the 1\, pnhUnuif. 
I do not say that I quote the language precisely, but, speaking from memory, 
I think I have given the substance of what that organ stated. 



ilr. LOGAX. Will the gentleman allow— 
Ir. STOKES. No, sir. "And that paper went on further to say that Mr. 
Douglas would have been iu full fellowship with the Republican party, but 
they would not receive him. Yet we are told that they are a unit, that they 
ave a r/reat nationut parti/. I beg leave to say to gentlemen who hold that 
party'to be a national pai-ty, that that opinion is refuted by the witnesses pro- 
duced this morning. You "have it so declared by the honorable Senator from 
Mississippi, (Mr. Brown,) in an address he delivered to the Legislature of his State. 
Why, sir, he denounces this Republican doctrine, and then goes on and denoun- 
ces the Douglas doctrine and Buchanan's. Why, sir, I find they do not agree in 
mv Stale, and I find they disagree here. The papers from which I have read 
extracts have stated the'case correctly. But why did tliose papers utter those 
sentiments during last Congress? Because of a discussion which took place in 
the other end of the Capitol, between Senators Douglas, Pugh, Brodcrick, and 
others on the one side, and Messrs. Brown and Davis, of Mississippi, and others 
from the South, upon the other side. When northern Senators stood up and 
told southern Senators that the Kansas-Nebraska bill contained the popular- 
sovereignty doctrine; that Mr. Buchanan, in accepting it, construed it in that 
way; and'that had he not construed it in that way in his letter of acceptance, 
he coidd not have carried a single northern State, southern Democratic Sena- 
tors replied, that if construed in that way he would not have carried a single 
southern State. Yet there is no division! I think there is. Then it was that 
those papers came out and uttei-ed those sentiments and gave their opinions to 
the country. 

I have heard gentlemen upon this floor declare, since I have been here, that 
they wanted no more cheating. I am in favor of no more cheating. The 
Americans and Whigs of Tennessee, in the canvass of 1855 and the canvass of 
1S56, stood together shoulder to shoulder, and told the Democratic party of 
the State that Mr. Douglas's view of it was the proper construction; that that 
was just what the Kansas-Nebraska bill meant; and yet the southern Demo- 
crats stood square up and denied it, and said it meant no such thing. I told 
them time would prove our position correct, and it was proved no longer ago 
than last Congress. The northern Democrats stood upon the Douglas doctrine, 
aii^ the southern Democrats stand upon the side of the President. So much for 
the position of the Democratic party upon that question. 

I agree with tl)e gentleman from Mississippi, (Mr. Davis,) who made the 
proposition to us this morning, that if we would walk over heart and hand and 
join the Democratic party, it would tend to build up a great southern sectional 
party. I have heard that, and I believe that it would tend to build up a sec- 
tional party at the South, stronger than any sectional party which now exists 
there; but'it would drive northern members also to act together. I deprecate 
and abhor the idea of building up a sectional party anywhere. I am for the 
Union, and for sustaining the Constitution and the laws everywhere, for the 
just rights of all sections. I am for the North, South, East, and West, and we 
ought to go on heart and hand as a band of brothers. 

Some gentlemen may come to the conclusion I have been talking so much 
about the Democratic partj^ that I would propose to affiliate with tiie other 
side of the House. I wish to say, it has been insinuated, and even charged, 
tbtit the Opposition were in affiliation with the Republican side of the House. 
I believe it has been further said that had it not been for .John Brown's foray, 
the southern Opposition would have been in full fellovvship with the Republi- 
can party. It was further said by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr.Cox,) as I 
undsrstood him, that another evidence that we were in affiliation with the Re- 
publicans, was that a portion of us had taken seats upon the Republican side 
of the House. 

Mr. COX. Will the gentleman allow me to read an article taken from a pa- 
per published in Tennessee, recommending that very thing? 
Mr. STOKES. No, sir. (Cries of "Go on !") 

Ml'. C(JX. 1 am now prepared with the evidence upon that point. 
Mr. STOKES. It was charged during the canvass that we would be in affili- 
ation with the Republican party. It was charged tliat we would be in affilia- 
tion with the Reptiblican asid Abolition party. That was charged in 183fi, in 
1840, in 1844— yes, sir, the Sage of Ashland, Mr. Clay, was charged and hunted 
down in 1844, and branded with every sort of infainy. We were charged in 
1848 with it; we were charged in 1852, and we were charged in 1856 with it. 
And since we came here, it has been said that we are likely to affiliate with the 
Republicans. Now, let me say — and I think I am authorized to speak, not only 
for myself, but for the whole soitthern Opposition— that no intention ever en- 
tered\he mind of one member of the southern Opposition, to my knowledge, of 



affiliating witli the Republicans upon the slavery question. I eay here, that I 
cannot vote for the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Sherman,) much as" I may esteem 
him for liis social qualities: hut I will say this, while there is no aihliiition, the 
Republican siJe of the House, outside of "the slavery question 

Mr. BAKKSDALR Mr. Clerk 

Mr. STOKErf. I do not wish to be interrupted. Outside of tiie slavery 
question there is, in my opinion, a large portion of the Republican side of the 
House, and the opposition South who do agree upon some of tlie great questions 
which may be brought up and agitated in this Congress. 1 think that their 
views in relation to the taritf are somewhat similar to ours, and also their views 
in relation to other questions. There is one great question on wliich I think 
they agree with us. My honorable friend from Mississippi said this morning 
that he thougjit there was but a trifling difference between tlie Democrats and 
th« southern Opposition. Kow, sir, as I have said, there is one question that 
I regard as important, concerning which, I think the Republicans and southern 
Opi)osition agree pretty generally, and that is, in uniting in probing to the very 
core the corruptions that have been practiced by this Administration. We 
have. I repeat,' no affiliation with the Republican side of the Ikmse upon the 
question of slavery. There has been none, and there will be noiu-, so long as 
they occujn' the position and the ground which thej- now occupy in regard to 
slavery. I have said, sir, and I repeat, that I think the true position for the 
southern Opposition — although few in number, only twenty-fonr, including 
the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Buigcs,) whose course here I admire — is 
to stand between these two sectional parties that are arrayed against each 
other here, and appeal to them, and admonish, and persuade them to sta}' their 
hand, until, if possible, a sufficient number of conservative men may be induced 
to concentrate upon a South American, and elect him Speaker. Sueh an event, 
in my humble judgment, would do more to allay this feeling of excitement ia 
the country thau any one thing that could be done by the House of Represent- 
atives. 

My honorable friend from Mississippi says that there is very little difference 
between us. Why, then, could not the Democrats vote for Mr. GrLMKR? But, 
Mr. Clerk, to the subject of the organization of the House. Wiiy is it that this 
House is not organized? We have been here for five weeks ballotintr, and no 
Speaker is elected yet. Why is it? Gentlemen upon the Democratic side of 
the House have said repeatedly that they desire an organisation, and are will- 
ing to make some concessions in order to elect some man to preside ever this 
body who is not a Republican. They declare their purpose to be to defeat the 
Republican candidate for Speaker. They have stated it over and over again, 
and the impression is sought to be made on the country, to sortie extent, that the 
southern Opposition were responsible. I ask any Democrat upon this floor, if 
there has ever been a time, at any period since we met here, wheji the twenty- 
three southern Opposition men could have elected any Democrat? 1 intend 
that the issue shall go to the couutrj', as it ought to, and that the responsibility 
shall be placed on the proper shoulders. I assert again, in view ol' the ballot- 
ings here, that not a solitary ballot has been had here when the twenty-three 
southern Opposition could have elected a Democrat Speaker of the House. 
Then, why ask us to come over and join the Democratic party? What good 
will it do? What advantage is to be deiived from it? Will it make an elec- 
tion ? Xo, sir, it will not make an election of a Democrat. Tlien, why do tliey 
ask it? We have said to them, and I say it aLrain, now, that \\ lienever they 
show me that they liave a man who can comuiaud votes enough with tlie 
twenty-three votes of the soutliei-n Opposition, to elect him and place him in 
that Speaker's chair, then, and in that event, I will entertain your proposition. 

Mr. G ARTRELL. Do you speak for all of your party ? 

Mr. STOKES. I can speak for a very large nmjority of them. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I will say to the gcutlenuui that it", at any time, 
they can give us votes encmgli, we can get the live anti-Lecompton Democrats. 

Mr. ADUAIN. The gentleman from ^Mississipju has no autiiuriiy to speak 
for tiie five anti-Lecompton Democrats. (LaugiUer.) The anli-i.iecomplon 
Democrats on this floor are capable of speaking for tiiemselve.-^, and I ccrtaiidy 
think that it is out of place in the gentleman from Mississippi to subslitute liiin- 
self in tiie place of one of tiieir number. Tlie House will know their sentiments 
when one of their own number speaks for them. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississip])i. 1 want the gentleman to understand distinctly 
that I have no desire to substitute myself for him. 

Mr. ADRAIX. I will only say that if the gentleman should substitute my- 
self for him, it would be a most excellent substitute so far as pertonal appear- 
ance goes, and everything else. (Laughter.) 



8 

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I should consider that I was dishonoring myself 
if I should do such a thing. 

Mr. ADRAIN. I hope the gentleman from Mississippi did not intend to say 
anything offensive to me when he made the remark that in suV)stituting himself 
in my place he would consider that he was dishonoring himself. I think he 
should not have made that remark; because, since I have occupied a seat upon 
this floor, I have never uttered a single word to wound the feelings of any gea- 
tleman ; and I certainly tliink that the gentleman from Mississippi ought to 
recall the remark that he has just made. He and myself have always been 
ufion the most friendly terms, and I have for him the highest regard. I attri- 
bute the remark to impulsive feeling, and believe that on reflection he will 
withdraw it. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I have this to say : I have spoken of the gentle- 
man from New .Jersey, and the four or five others who cooperate with him, with 
the utmost, kindness. I gave it as my opinion in my speech, from what I had 
heard upon tliis floor in debate and in conversation, that whenever their votes 
would elect a member of the Democratic party, they would cooperate with tis 
in electing him. Acting upon that impression, I made the remark ju.st now 
that such was my opinion. The remark which the gentleman made immedi- 
ately afterwards I thought was rather offensive, considering the relations which 
had existed between us. 

Mr. ADRAIX. It was not so intended. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. If the gentleman says it was not so intended, 
then I withdraw the remark I made. 

Mr. ADRAIls. I cerrainly intended nothing of the kind. 
Mr. ST< >KES. I was going on to say, that at no time since I have been here 
could the southern Opposition have elected a Democrat as Speaker of the House. 
And I say tliat fact is pi-oved and demonstrated most clearly by the record. 
Then, I say, that, until the Democratic party settles its own quarrels and its 
own disputes, until they can harmonize among themselves, it is not fair to ask 
us to come to them. No, sir; I sa^'' that it is not a fair proposition to ask us 
to come over and help them to harmonize and reconcile their difficulties in their 
own party. 

Gentlemen have said that they would deplore, that they would regard it as a 
great calamity upon the country, the election to the Speaker's chair of a gentle- 
man who has indorsed the Helper book. I would regret to see it myself. I would 
regret to see Mr. Suermax elected to that chair, if he has indorsed the senti- 
ments that are in the Helper book. If he has not, I would be glad to hear him 
say it. Geiitlemen on the Democratic side of the House tell us, and want it to 
go forth to the country, that they are anxious to cuganize the House. You say 
you arc desirous to defeat the Republican candidate; that you desire to place 
in that chair a national and Union-h>ving man, a man who loves the Constitu- 
tion, and is willing to obey all the laws. Ycu have said these things in sub- 
stance. You have appealed to us time and again; you have told us that you 
desired to harmonize the elements of opposition to the Republican party. Have 
you ever had it in your power to do it? Not by the election of one of your 
own men; but you have had it in your power on two occasions to elect John 
A. Gilmer, of North Carolina, as Speaker of this House. Gentlemen get up 
here and sav they will not vote for Mr. Gilmer. Why? When we told that 
siile of the House that Mr. Gilmer could get votes enough with the votes of the 
Democrats proper to elect him, conservative men from Pennsylvania, New Jer- 
sey, and other States, came over and voted for him, giving him, on the next 
ballot, thirty-six votes. Eighty from the Democratic side of the House would, 
at that time, have elected Mr. Gilmer Speaker of this House. After that vote 
was taken it was then said, I heard it spoken of in private conversation, that 
if the Democrats had commenced changing their votes to Mr. Gilmer, those 
gentlemen from New .lereey, Pennsjdvania, and elsewhere, would have aban- 
doned him and gone back to Mr. SHERMA>f. 

I informed some of these gentlemen of what I had heard ; and they assured 
me that they had voted for Mr. Gilmkr in good faith, and would vote for him 
again, if he desired it. We notified the Democratic side of the House of the 
fact; we gave them due andtimely notice. Wetold them that it would be in their 
power again to elect Mr. Gilmer; and that, if they did not vote for him, upon 
them would rest the responsibility for the non-organization of the House. Mr. 
Gilmer was again put in nomination ; and upon the next ballot received thirty- 
six votes; b\it, I believe, not a single solitary Democrat voted for him. Why 
was this? I repeat, sir, that the Democratic party of this House have had 
two fair opportunities to place in that chair a southern man, a patriot, a Union 
man, a Constitution-loving man, a law-abiding man, who has been educated 



inthe South, -who has resided in the South all his life, u-ho is the owner of 
numerous slaves, whose family and whose all are in tlie Soutli. I make then 
the issue; and it was alone for the purpose of makiiio; that issue, that I have 
asked the attention of the House at all today. And now, I want to say to the 
House why I have been easting my vote for that honoral)le gentleman. 1 have 
had his cliaracter represented to me, politically, socially, morally, and in every 
other sense of the word, as above reproach. His character is without stain — 
•without blot or blemish. He is qualified to occupy that chair. He is com- 
petent ; he would preside over the deliberations of this body with dignity; 
and I doubt not he would administer the duties of that high position fairly, 
honostl}% without partialit}'. With a man of that cliaracter, it was within the 
reach of the votes of eighty of the Democrats of this House to have placed 
hiiu in the Speaker's chair; and they refused to do it. Yet they still tell us 
they are very anxious to organize the House b}- the election of a Speaker in 
opposition to the Republican candidate. Why, gentlemen, you have no man 
■who could accomplish that result with the assistance of our votes. We have 
placed it within your power to elect John A. G-ilmer, and we can do it again. 
My impression" is, tliat my colleague, Mr. Etiieridge, can also command as 
large a number of votes. I believe that Mr. Harris, of Maryland, could also 
command a sufficient number. If you want to organize the House — I put the 
qiiestion again to you — what objection have you to Mr, Gilmer, of Xorth 
Carolina? I will tell you what I desire ; I want to organize the House, and I 
■wish to put men forward who can command some northern votes. I do not 
know as to Mr. Smith. I do not know as to some otlier gentlemen in our ranks, 
■whether they could get that northern vot« or not. But that is not the point. 
Are not they all southern men, imbued with southern feelings? I ask, cannot 
they come up and vote for one of tliese men and put him in the Speaker's 
chair? What is their objection? What reason have they assigned for not 
casting their vote for Mr. Gilmer? I desire to know what is the cause. I am 
here, Mr. Clerk, to act honestly and for the best interests of my country, and 
if there is anything that is hidden, and that I have not yet heard, in reference 
to Mr. GiLMEit, that disqualifies or renders him incompetent or_ un§t in any 
■way whatever to preside over the deliberations of tliis body, I wish to know it. 
Mr. RUST. Will tlie gentleman allow me to tell him, and to tell this House, 
■why I will not vote for Mr. Gilmer? 
Mr. STOKES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUST. When thirteen gentlemen, who for four weeks haved voted for 
Mr. Shervan — the Republican nominee for Speaker — to take that Speaker's 
chair, find anything in the character, antecedents, or the political Matus^ of a 
southern man upon this floor to commend him to their favor, that, sir, is a 
sufficient reason for me wliy I shall not vote for ;jim. I will never vote for 
such a man ; no political necessity, no persoiuxl consideration will make me do 
it. You may break every bone in my body upon tlie rack, and I will not do 
it; and that, Mr. Clerk, 1 "believe to be the sentiment entertained by a large 
number of gentlemen upon this side of the House. And let me go a little 
further. I believe tliat, but for that conviction prevailing on the otiier sid« 
of the House, the thirteen men I have referred to would never have voted for 
Mr. Gilmer; that but for that conviction, that this side would never come to 
his support, not one member of that side would have voted for him ; and I do 
verily believe that, if a sufficient number ot Democrats had gone over to him to 
secure his election, those very men would have changed their votes froni Mr. 
Gilmer back to Mr. Sherman. I do not state that as a fact, but as my opinion. 
Now I will ask the gentleman a question, which he has heretofore declined 
to hear. Does he say that he will dissolve this Union for no cause whatever? 
Mr. STOKES. I wish to be distinctly understood. I did say, in reference to 
a dissolution of tlie Union, that I would oppose it under all circumstances. By 
that I mean, of course, under any of the circumstances wiiieh I can now antici- 
pate. 

Mr. RUST. I want to get the gentleman's words which have been written 
down. 

Mr. STOKES. There is a good deal I have said wiiicli I do not know Iiow 
it is written down. 

Mr. RUST. Wiiat is the gentleman's recollectimi of what ho did say ? Wliat 
is the languasre the gentleman employed? How will it be printed? 

Mr. STOKES. The gentleman has" no right to ask about what I am going to 
have printed ; whether what sentiments I may give expression to shall be writ- 
ten by A, B, C, or D. 

Mr. RUST. Did not some member of the gentleman's party prompt him to 
make the correction or amendment of his sentiment as before expressed? 



10 

Mr. STOKES. I have uot been prompted to express anj- sentiment which I 
do not entertain. 

Mr. RUST. I understand that tlie gentleman will not resist the election of 
Fred. Douglass — I will call him Mr. Fred. Douglass, out of respect for gentle- 
men of the other side; the gentleman, I understand, will not resist the election 
of Ml'. Fred. Douglass to the Presidency of the United States. 

Mr. STOKES. The gentleman knows that a negro never can he elected to 
that position, for under'the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
a negro cannot be even a citizen. 

Mr. RUST. Does not tlie gentleman know that one of the first things pro- 
posed to be clone bj the Republican party when they get into power is to re- 
form that court so that the Constitution and tlie laws shall be interpreted in 
obedience to the dictates of the leading demagogues of that party? 

Mr. STOKES. 1 do not know that fact. It is apparent, sir, that whenever 
one of this little band of Whigs and American begins to bring before the coun- 
trj- the facts — to hold up these things jirecisely as they took place — he is inter- 
rujjted and catechised. I say that 1 am a Union man ; that 1 am for the Union 
first, last, and all the time. 

Mr. GARTRELL took the floor. 

Mr. STOKES. I do not yield any further. I have never attenipttfd myself, 
to interrupt any member who had the floor by putting any question to him. 
I will never interrupt any gentleman, but I will take notes upon his speech, 
and reply to him after he has concluded. 

'^o-w, Mr. Clerk, I have said that the Democratic party have had, on two 
occasions, an ojiportunity to elect Mr. Giljier, of Korth Carolina, Speaker of 
this House. They can have an opportunity again. But the gentleman from 
Arkansas, (Mr. RisT,) has stated that some gentlemen on that side would, if 
they had'voted for Mr. Gilmek, been justified in withdrawing from him if some 
members from the IS'orth of the opposite party had supported him. That is 
what I have been trying to get at. Is that the objection to him? If it is I 
regard it as the niosl frivolous of all olijections : that they will not support him 
because some gentlemen of the Republican party, willing to organize the House, 
have voted for him. 

Now, I submit to gentlemen upon the Democratic side of the House, if Mr. 
EococK was to-day to be put in nomination by them, and twenty-three Ameri- 
cans should vote for him, and ten or fifteen Republicans 

Mv. RUST. Does the gentleman wish me to answer the question? 
Mr. STOKES. Not now. If Mr. Bocock were renominated to-day, and 
should he receive twenty-three votes fiom the South Americans and the votes 
of the People's party of Pennsylvania — yes, I will go further, were he to re- 
ceive the votes of ten or fifteen Republicans, they declaring at the same time 
in their place that they were satisfied that Joun Shehman could not be elected; 
that they desired an organization; that they make no surrender, and no con- 
cession; that they vote "for Mr. Bocock under a solemn protest that they did 
it for the "ood of the country ; under such circimastances, I ask, would Mr. 
Bocock take the chair ? or would Democrats commence rising in their places and 
ask the Clerk to change their votes? Would they do it? If there is any man 
upon this floor who would change his vote from Mr. Bocock, then I would 
like to know who he is. 
Mr. IIINDMAK. I would. 

Rr. RUST. I can tell the gentleman something. 

Mr. VALLANDIGHAJ*!. 1 beg leave to remind the gentleman that just such 
a case occurred ten years ago about this day, when Sir. Giddings and others, 
who had held the House sometime in su.spense, as we have been held now, were 
found votine for a Democrat. Afterwards it was aeeertained that there was a 
corrupt bargain between the Democrat they voted for and them, in reference 
to constituttne the committees of this House. And in the case put by the gen- 
tleman from Tennessee, of Republicans voting here for Mr. Bocock, as they did 
with Americans for Mr. Gilmer, I should regard such an extraoidinary thing 
as, at least, verv suspicious, and would not, without hesitation or inquirj- as to 
wliat it meant, "vote for him or any other Democi'at. 

Mr. STOKES. The gentleman says he woidd not vote fov Mr. Bocock. Now, 
sir, I ask other L-entlemen upon this" side of the House if thvy would, under such 
circumstances, refuse to vote for Mr. Bocock? 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Your own question I will answer, but to the one you are 
prompted to make I will uot. 1 say to you, in my place, that I have every 
respect for the character of Mr. Bocock; but if fourteen of the men who re- 
commend the Helper book, and undertook to circulate it, were to vote for him, 
it would be such an evidence against Mr. Bocock, and so taint him, in my opin- 



11 

ion, that I would not vote for him ; and, if I had voted for him, I would change 
my vote. 

Mr. LAMAR. In my opinion, the fact of ten Repuhlicans voting for Mr. 
BococK would not affect Mi-. Bocock's principles; and, therefore, I would con- 
tinue to vote for him; and for the reason that I think Mr. Bocook is nearer to 
me than he would be to the Republicans, who might vote for him. Under the 
same circumstances, without disrespect to any party — and I beg everybody's 
pardon — I would not vote for Mr. Gilmer. 

Mr. STEVENS, of l^ennsylvania. Very complimentary to the South Ameri- 
cans ! 

Mr. LAMAR. I wish it distinctly understood that the reason why I would 
not vote for Mr. Gilmer is the reason which, in my opinion, prompted those 
gentlemen to vote for him ; in other words, I believe Mr. Gilmer is nearer to 
those gentlemen of the Republican party, who voted for him, than he is to me. 

Mr.'^MILLSON. A single word. 

Mr. SToKES. Yes, sir; if the gentleman wishes to answer whether he would 
vote for 3Ir. Bocock. 

Mr. MILLSON". I would; and I say further that the expressions which have 
been made here bj" some gentlemen upon this side of the House may, perhaps, 
be subject to an interpretation which I do not believe those gentlemen designed. 
For mysclf, I say, from my knowledge of Mr. Bocook, that I would not draw 
any inference prejudicial to his honor and integrity, even if I had the direct 
testimony, questionable as it might be, of such as would dare to impeach him. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to say a word in answer to the question propounded 
by my colleague. 

Mr. GROW. I ask the Clerk to request gentlemen to be seated, in order 
that we may hear what is going on. It is impossible, while members are stand- 
ing all around, for gentlemen in this part of the Hall to hear. 

Order being restored and members seated, 

Mr. WRIGHT (resuming) said : I suppose mj^ honorable colleague has seen 
some resolutions which were passed recently by the Legislature of the State 
which he and I have the honor to represent, in part. I suppose my colleague 
knows, if he has paid due attention to those resolutions, that one of them is as 
follows: 

" Besolred, That it is the duty of our Eepresentatives in Congress to recognize as enemies 
to the Union, and especially to the slave States, all who in any way favor or affiliate with this 
sectional Black Kepublican party ; and that any action on their part which favors a co-opera- 
tion with the Black Kepublicans in organizing the House, and thus placing the officers and 
important committees of that body under their control, would be false to the sentiment of the 
people of Tennessee, and insult to their constituents, and disgraceful to themselves. 

That, sir, is the language of the resolution passed by the Legislature of that 
gallant State, which my colleague, in part, represents. 

Mr. STOKES. Will you answer my question, if you please? 

Mr. WRIGHT. T will answer it, and I declare, in response to that resolution, 
every word of which I fully indorse, that it would be affiliation with this sec- 
tional Black Republican party, to assist them in electing any man upon this 
floor as Speaker, whether he comes from the North, or whether he comes froiu 
the South. Sir, that is the reason why I did not, and why I never will, atliliate 
with that party, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (IMr. Stevens,) a dis- 
tinguished member of the Black Republican party at their head. I will not 
affiliate with them, because I desire to respond to the resolutions of our constitu- 
ents, and 1 believe them to be just and proper. That is why I did not do it, 
and will not do it under any circumstances. 

Mr. STOKES. I ask my colleague from Tennessee this question : Suj^pose that 
eight, or ten, or twelve, or more of the gentlemen fi'om the Republican side of 
the House come over and vote for Mr. Bocock for Speaker, would you abandon 
him? 

Mr. WRIGHT. T will reply to my colleague. 

Mr. STOKES. I M'ant an answer. 

Mr. WRIGHT. In tlie first place, I suppose such a thing to be impossible, 
and never will happen. 

Mr. STOKES. Ah! 

Mr. WRIGHT. I will answer my colleague. Should any considerable num- 
ber of Black Republican , by voting for Mr. Bocock as they did for Mr. (Jilmeu, 
and thus indicate that of all of the Democratic members here, he is least objec- 
tionable and more acceptable to them, ami then declare, as some of tliem liave 
done in tlie case of Mr. Gilmer, that the}- vote for him because thej- approve 
his record, I say, sir, that I would consider it my duty as the Representative of 
a southern constituency, and carrying out the spirit of the resolution just read, 
lo withdraw my support from Mr. Bocock and give it to some other pei-aon. 



12 

Mr. FLOREXCE. Will the geutleman from Tennessee allow me a single mo- 
ment? 

Mr. GARNETT. I desire to respond to the question of the gentle ;)aii from 
Tennessee. 

Mr. STOKES. I should like you to respond "yes" or 'no." 

Mr. KEITT. Will the gentleman from Tennessee yield to nie for a single 
moment? 

Mr. STOKES. Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to answer my 
question ? 

Mr. KEITT. Yet^, I desire to answer it, but in my own way, and I do not 
think you will object to it. 

Mr. STOKES. I ask the (question 

Mr. KEITT. Yes, I will answer it fairly. 

Mr. STOKES. I ask the question in this way, and I want it answered di- 
rectly. 

Mr. KEITT. Yes, I will answer it directly. 

Mr. STOKES. If five, ten, twelve, or fifteen votes were needed, added to 
the American votes, to elect Mr. Bocock as Speaker of tliis House, and Repub- 
licans were to cast those votes, would the gentleman give Mr. Bocock his vote, 
or would he abandon him? 

Mr. KEITT. I answer the gentleman that I would not. 

Mr. STOKES. ]Mr. Clerk 

Mr. KEITT. No — stop. I just want to say one word, because I am answer- 
ing you fairly. I would, with the gentleuian from Mississippi, hold that Mr. 
Bocock, in his principles and in his integrity, was utterly untouched by any 
votes that he might receive from the other side of the House. I do not pre- 
tend to say that Mr. Gil^mer was affected in the slightest degree by any vote 
which he got from the other side, but I want to institute this distinction be- 
tween the two in tlieir party relations alone. The Democrats would not change 
their votes from Mr. Bocock, but they might not go to Mr. Gilmer, and consis- 
tently. We might say : Gentlemei>, we are fighting a common enemy — those 
whom we believe are false to the Constitution and aggressive upon our ri>;hts; 
with them we hold no terms and no parley ; with you we do ; you and we can 
settle this matter; we will not let the Republicans settle it for us; they shall 
not select from you the man whom we shall support when we go over to you ; 
"we will select for oxnselves ; we would not ask you to let them select from our 
side the man that you shall support ; we ask you to select one of our number 
yourselves, and we will select one of yours, and not let the Republicans do it 
for us. (Cries of "That is right!" from the Democratic benches.) 

Mr. JOHN" COCHRANE. Will the gentleman allow me ? 

Mr. STOKES. I prefer to go on until I get through. 

Mr. JOHN COCHRANE. I wish to answer your question. (Cries of " go on 
Stokes!") 

Mr. STOKES. I do not wish to yield any more to any gentleman, for I in- 
tend to conclude my remarks very shortly, and then these gentlemen can oc- 
cupy the floor as long as they please. 

Mr. Clerk, 1 have come to the very point at which I was aiming. I wanted 
to know the reason why these gentlemen who profess to be so very anxious to 
organize the House could not go over and vote for Mi-. Gilmeu. Do they be- 
lieve that Mr. Gilmer is not a patriot? Do they believe that he is not a Union 
man, a friend of the Constitution, and in favor of the execution of the laws ? 
No, sir, they do not doubt him upon those questions. What do they say in re- 
sponse to my question ? Several of them have risen here and stated that they 
could not vote for liim, because several northern gentlemen have voted for him. 
But gentlemen go still further — and it only tends to show their extreme posi- 
tion — that if lie. Bocock, a gentleman whom I regard and esteem, the nominee 
of their own caucus, should receive Republican votes, they would withdraw 
their votes from him. 

Mr. COBB. I say that I would not. That is the way I meet the question. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I would not withdraw my vote from Mr. Bocock, or any 
other goiid Democrat, because enough Republicans came over and voted for him 
to elect him ; bociause that would be placing it in the power of a handfiill of 
Republicans to defeat any Democrat, and I am not to be caught in that kind of 
trap. I would not withdraw my vote in such a case as the gentleman from 
Tennessee supposes. 

Mr. STOKES. Why, sir, there is a perfect stir in the camp. 1 have been 
watching this thing for the last three or four weeks, and I wanted to place the 
matter fairly before the House. 

Mr. WINSLOW. Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question ? 



1? 

Mr. STOKES. Xo, sir ; the gentleman will excuse ni ,. I prefer to go on. 
I want to make my own propositions. 
Mr. WRIGHT sought the floor. 

Mr. STOKES. I have yiel-ied to my colleague, and he has answered my 
question. I cannot yield further. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I wanted to ask a question. 
Mr. STOKES. Very well, sir ; propound your question. 
Mr. WRIGHT. I suppose my colleague would not place me in a false posi- 
tion ? 

Jlr. STOKES. Cei-tainly not. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I have voted for one of my colleagues from Tennessee who 
does not belong to the Democratic party. I refer to Mr. Maynard. But, sir, 
Mr. M.\ynard could not get the votes of his own party. I believe he did not 
receive even the votes of all his colleagues, and could not ; for one of his col- 
leagues has, if I am not mistaken, declared that he would not vote for any man 
who supporfed the Lecompton bill. 

Mr. STOKES. I yielded to my colleague to propound a question. 
Mr. WRIGHT. My question simple is: why Mr. Gilmer could get fourteen 
Republican votes, while Mr. Mayxaud of Tennessee and Mr. Boteler of Virginia 
could not get a single vote ? 

Mr. STOKES. I will answer my colleague, that none of the gentlemen be- 
longing to the party with which I act in this House indorse the doctrines of 
the Republican party, as I coneieve. But Mr. Gilmer is an anti-Lecompton 
man, and voted against the Lecompton constitution. Mr. Gilmer is respected 
personally as a gentleman, and esteemed as such by those foui'teen gentlemen 
who voted for him, and they, believing that he would preside over our de- 
liberations fairly and impartially, voted for him. 

Mr. BONHAM. I ask the gentleman from Tennessee if that is the only 
reason why they voted for Mr. Gilmer? 

Mr. STOKES. If there is any other reason excepting that he is an anti-Le- 
compton man, and is qualified and competent to preside over the deliberations 
of this body, I do not know it. 

Mr. BONHAM. Let me ask the gentleman whether Mr. Gilmer is not a 
tariff man, and whether these fourteen gentlemen are not tariff men ? 

Mr. MORRIS, of Pennsylv-ania. I will say to the gentleman from South 
Carolina that that would be a very good reason if there was no other. 

Mr. STOKES. I will answer the question of the gentleman. Mr. Gilmer is 
a Whig ; Mr. Gilmer is an American. He stands hereto day as a Whig and as 
an American. The gentleman knows very well the position of the Whigs 
upon the taiiff. They are in fevor, as I understand Mr. Gilmer to be, of a 
tariff for revenue ; and they are in favor, and I understand him to be in favor, 
of a tariff for protection sufhcient to ju'otect our own home industry against 
foreign labor. (Applause in the galleries.) 
Mr. WINSLOW. Now let me ask a question. 

Mr. STOKES. No, sir ; I should have betn done long aero if it had not been for 
these interruptions. This, then, Mr. Clerk, is the condition of things, and I 
ask how are we going to iiarmonize? How else are we going to make an elec- 
tion for Speaker? The Democrats will not vote for Mr. Gilmer, when we can 
get northern votes enough to elect him. If Mr. Bocock were to receive our 
twenty-three votes and the twelve or fifteen votes necessary to elect him were 
to coine from the Rej^ublican side, they would withdraw their votes for that 
reason and still there would be no election. 

That is tlie condition of things, and I want the country to understand it. I 
want to make the point right here. 1 want the country to know wjiere the 
responsibility rests, for I have placed it where it properly belongs. They 
will not vole for one of our own men who can bring with him sufKcient 
northern strength to elect him with their assistance ; they will not elect one of 
their own number if they should be voted for by a Republicin. I believe 
that if one hundred menibers wero to walk over from the Ri-pnblican side o( 
the House to-day and vote for Mr. Booock, he would not be politically 
affected by it. If he were elected under such circumstances, I have no 
doubt he "would take the chair, and on that acccutit discharge his duty 
none the less faithfully and impartially than if elected by ])emocratic votes. 
1 ask, Jdr. Clerk, whether there is a pr()1)ability, whetlier ther^- is a possibility, 
of organi/.ing the House, until you come at least with your whole jiarty and 
uniteupon Mr. Bocock or some other man your entire party strength. 

Mr. Clerk, I am one of tliose who are foV harmonizing. I am (or compro- 
mising. I, for one, am willing to make any reasonable concession, when gen- 
tlemen on the other side of the House can show me how by my vote I cau 



14 

elect. I took my p< -itions in mj? canvass in Tennessee openly and decidedly. 
I came here by a majority of about foiir or five hundred votes. I had to over- 
come a previous majority of over one thousand two hundred in my district. My 
district gave the Democratic candidate for Governor on the day of my election 
a majority of about eight hundred. I went before my people and told them 
that I fully and freely indorsed tlie principles of the old Wliig party — that I 
had not sHrrendered one of them: and tliat 1 fully and freely indorsed the 
principles of the American party. The people voted for me and elected rae, 
and 1. intend to carry out their wishes — to act honestly and faithfully for the 
security and safety of all of the interests of my country. I design casting my 
vote for all measures, according to mj' best judgment, that tend to promote the 
great interests of the whole country, without reference to their origin. 

During my canvass I was asked the question wliether I would vote for a 
Democrat or for a Republican for Speaker of this House. My reply was, that 
I would vote for an O|ipositiou candidate, but that whenever the contingency 
arose, and I wsls forced to cast my vote between a sound, conservative, national 
Democrat and a Republican, that I would vote for such a Democrat. I have 
no concealments, and 1 wish to say that the doctrines of Judge Douglas are ob- 
noxious to the South, and particularly to my people. My competitor announced 
that if Judge Douglas were nomiiiated by the Charleston convention that he 
would not support him. My constituents aie not iu Ins favor. So, then, sir, 
I could not, were 1 to consult ni}' constituents, cast m\' vote any more ior a 
Douglas Democrat than I could cast it for a Republican. That is the sentiment 
of my district. Nominate your man. If m.y vote will elect Mr. Booock; if it 
would elect one of my colleagues ; if my vote would elect any souml, conserva- 
tive. Union-loving Democrat, I would at once give it to make him S))eaker. 

Mr. LOGAN. Suppose the vote comes ui> between a Douglas Democrat and 
a Republican, what will the gentleman do iu that event? 

Mr. STUKES. 1 would, iu that event, vote for one of my own ]jarty ; for I 
could no more vote for one than I could for the other without misrepresenting 
my constituents. 

Mr. LOGAN. How do j-ou expect us, tlien, to vote for Mr. Gilmer, if yo\i 
say that you can uiiver vote for one of us? 

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Gilmer is anti-Lecompton, like Judge Dougl.\s, and prob- 
ably the Douglas Democrats could vote for him upon that ground. An anti- 
Lecompton Democrat certainh* could vote for an anti-Lecompton Whig. 

Mr. LOGAN. I want to say that the Douglas Democrats, with whom I act, 
did not votefor Mi-. Gilmer because the Republicans were voi,iiig with him, and 
for many other good reasons. 

Mr. STOKES. I suppose that j'ou consider that a good answer. 

Mr. LOGAN. And 1 want to say fprther, that they had no intention of vo- 
ting for him even if the Republicans had not voted him. 

And I will ask the gentleman this ciuestion : How is that you, after what 
you have said, pi-csent the name of Mr. ExiiEUTDGE and ask Democrats of the 
South to vote for him, when he took the same position in his canvass that has 
been taken by Judgi3 L)ouglas? 

Mr. STOKES. 1 have not asked a member of the Democratic party to vote 
for Mr. Gilmer, or for Mr. Etueridge; I have oulj' inquired what was the rea- 
son that prevented thorn from voting for those gentlemen. 

Mr. LOGAN. Will you vote for Mr. Etueridge, one of your own colleagues? 

Mr. STOKES. I will 

^Mr. LOGAN. But 3'ou will not vote for a Douglas Democrat who stands 
upon tlie same principle in reference to the slavery question that Mr. Etheuidge 
does ; and you say that there is no choice between a Republican and a Douglas 
Democrat. 

Mr. STOKES. I am not apprised of the fact that my ccUeague, ilr. Ethe- 
ridce, occupies that position. 

Mr. ADRAIN. A few years ago, when Mr. Etueridge was a raenilier of this 
House, he made a speech in which, I believe, he took the ver\' doctrine now 
held by Judge Douglas. I have so understood, alihough I have not read the 
speech. 

Mr. STOKES. I have read one of the speeches of my colleague from Ten- 
nessee, but I read there no such sentiments as are now imputed to him. 

Mr. ADRAIN. The gentleman did not read the right speech. 

Mr. STOKES. My colleague is able and capable of taking care of himself on 
that point. 

Mr. Clerk, to resume my remarks : the country is in a distracted condition. 
Here are mail contractors who are suffering for want of the money which the 
Government owes them ; and a proposition has been offered for the election of 



15 

a Speaker for twenty-four hours, in order that a bill might be passed relieving 
those men who have performed their service to the Government, and toward 
whom the Government has not fulfilled its contract. 

There was a contract entered into between the Government and those gen- 
tlemen, and the mail contractors have performed their part of the contract. 
Having carried the mail, tliey now come here and demand at the hands of the 
Government the pay for their services. There was no appropriation made at 
the last Congress. Whose fault was it? I am not here to say whose fault it 
was. I onh" wish this fact borne in mind, that the Democratic party, both in 
their platform and principles, declared that if we could give them the control 
of the Government they would administer it rigJitly. 

Mr. BOULlGiN^y. Will the gentleman allow me 

Mr. STOKES. If my friend from Louisiana will allow me to proceed, I will 
close in a few moments. 

As I was going on to remark, th«y declared to the people that they wore 
competent to administei' this Government upon economi^ml principles; that 
they would administer it according to justice, equity, and right. 1 only want 
to say that they then had a large majority in the other end of the Capitol, and 
they were here upon this floor with a majority of over twenty, and yet the 
Post Office appropriation bill failed, and the country was left to suffer. I admit 
that the country is in a distracted condition. Those creditors are suffering for 
their mone}', and ought to have it. 

Now, I ask this side of the House if the}- will not come up and unite upon a 
eouthern Opposition member, and place him in the chair, in order that those 
men may get their honest and just dues from the Government? Their answer 
is, that if certain members vote for certain gentlemen, they will not. I have, 
Mr Clerk, this country's good at heart; and I feel for those honest creditors. I 
want them paid ; and I am ready and willing to organize this House upon any 
reasonable, conservative basis. I do not know whether we have a man upon 
our side who will command the Democratic strength. Some of them tell us 
they will not vote for a Whig or American. Some place their objection upon 
one ground, and some upon another. So it seems we cannot concentrate them 
upon one of our friends at all. They make speeches here in which they make 
charges nut only against the Republicans, but against our little Spartan band, 
and yet they ask us to go over and vote with them. 

lam not disposed to trespass upon the time of the House, and I will now con- 
clude my remarks by making one simple statement to the House. I desire to 
bring to the notice of the House, that at an early daj" of this session, mj- hon- 
orable friend who sits behind me, (Mr. Nelson,) than v\ho;ii,in my judgment, a 
truer patriot never lived, rose in his place and made a sensible appeal to both 
sides of the House to lay aside all sectional feelings, all bitterness of party 
prejudice, and come together, organize, and restore peace and quiet to tlie coun- 
try. He came forward and vindicated the resolution intioduced by my friend 
from North Carolina (Mr. (iIlmer,) in lieu of the resolution of the gentleman 
from Missouri, (Mr. Cl.'^hk.) Why! Let me tell gentlemen t!iat that resolution 
of the gentleman from North Carolina was agreed upon unanimously by the 
South Americans upon this floor. 

It not only declared that those who indorsed the Helper book, but declared 
that no man ought to occupy the Speaker's chair, who would riot maintain and 
indorse the coinpromise measures of 1850, and the sentiments expressed by .lis- 
tinguished members of the Democratic and Whig parties in ISoO, and 185L 
My colleague (Mr. Nelson) wont further. He came forward and uttered Union 
eentimenfs upon this floor; and what followed? You findtlie loading organ of 
the Democratic party published at the metropolis of Tennessee, denouncing him 
and making charges against him. I a.-sk, has it come to this, that wlien a freeman 
rises upon this floor and utters Utiion bcnliments, declares iiimseif in favor of 
the Union and the Constitution, and proposes a compromise for peace and 
harmony, that he is to be subjected to the censure, abuse, and denunciation of 
a Democi-iuic piess? 

Having said thus much, I return mj' thanks to the House for the courtcoui 
manner in which my remarks have been received. 



APPENDIX. 



Ou January lOtb, the following took place: 

Mr. WfJGHT. I sa}', sir, that I have the exact language of my colleague 
liere, as reported in the Globe, and he says that for no cause whatever, no, 
never, will he agree to dissolve this Union. 

Mr. STOKES. Tiien niy colleague has certainly not read my speech. I am 
very happy that my colleague has alluded to that point, and I am exceedingly 
obliged to hira for yielding me the floor for a few moments. I stated here that 
I was not in favor of disunion; that I was opposed to any disruption of these 
States. I said I would not agree to dissolve this Union for any cause whatevei*. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Very well: that amounts to the same thing. I did not de- 
sire to misstate your position. 

Mr. STOKES. Hold on. I have the floor just now. I uttered, Mr. Clerk, 
the sentiment uttei'cd by the Sage of Ashland. When asked the question when 
he would consent to dissolve this Union, the Sage of Ashland replied, "Xever, 
never, never; no, never, will I consent to do it." 

Mr. WRIGHT. Now, I hope my colleague is through. I wish to proceed. 

Mr. STOKES. I have not finished yet. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I cannot yield for the gentleman to make a speech and in- 
ject it into mine. He lias stated what lie said, and that is all he ought to desire 
to do. 

Mr. STOKES. I never uttered in my speech, I never uttered on this floor, 
the sentiment that I would not resist aggression from the North, or from any 
other quarter, against my State or my people. No, sir. No, sir, if the North, 
having the power, pass a law which inflicts an injury upon the people whom I 
represent, or upon the people of my State, I would resist the execution of that 
law, and I would go to the extreme to resist it. But, Mr. Clerk, I would resist 
it in the Union, and not out of it. I indorse, sir, the language of the late 
Governor of Virginia, a few days ago, when he was making a speech upon the 
return of the students from the medical colleges at the North. The Governor 
of Virginia, in his rernarks on that occasion, declared that he would not dissolve 
this Union, but that he would light in the Union. I hope, ilr. Clerk, my col- 
league will grant me a few moments longer. I ask it res|)ectfnlly. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I will. I ask my colleague if he would be in favor of armed 
resistance to such a law. 

Mr. STOKES. I will resist it in every shape, manner, or form that it ever 
comes. I will submit to no outrages from any quarter wliatever. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I thank my colleague that, as a Tennesseean, he is unwilling 
to submit to outrage. 

Mr. STOKES. That resistance may result in a dissolution of the Union. But, 
sir, I answer again that to agree to a dissolution of the Union I never will consent. 
I am sound upon the Union question, sir. (Laughter.) I am for this Union ; and 
let me say to my colleague, and to the gentlemen upon this floor, that wiien this 
Union of ours is to besevei'ed, it will not be done by a few fanatics; it will not be 
done by a few Hotspurs, designing politicians, or ofiice-seekers ; it will not be done 
until after the deepest calculation, made by whom ? By the honest, hard-working 
yeonianiy of the country; bj- the yeomanry of what my colleague termed 
the mountain district which I represent; bj- the bone and sinew of the country; 
not until they have had a voice in the matter. They have to be consulted, 
they have to be talked to, they iiave to be advised with, as to whether it would 
result to their beneflt or to their loss. Let me say, and I hope my colleague 
will indulge uie for a moment or two longer, that when this great Union of ours 
is to be dissolved, it will not be the result of impulse or passion ; it will be done 
after mature deliberation, by the honest men of the countr}'; it will not be 
done in a day, a week, a month, or a yeai\ No, sir, notwithstanding all the 
speeches coming from the South in favor of secession, I say for all that, it will 
require centuries to sever this Unioii of ours. (Applause in the galleries.) Has 
it come to this? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I hope my colleague will not take up more of my time. 

Mr. STOKES. Only a minute or tvv-o longer. I will simply make this state- 
ment, that I was very much interrupted the other day in my remarks. All I 
have now to remark is, that I truly regret that there have been sentiments 
uttered on this floor in favor of disunion or secession. I regret that it has come 
from the South. Has it come to this, that a member of this House, who rises 
in his place after hearing disunion sentiments, and proclaims that he is in 
favor of this Union, and will not lot it go, at all hazards, and to the last e^ 
tremity; has it come to this, I say, that an humble member is to be abused f^ 
his sentiments I I now yield the floor to my colleague. 



4 




















_<<^< 







■5^ *0 f 



•3 •• ® • 












,-^^' o*. *• -• ^v- , 



^ 
^ 














• % A^ -'^ 








■■■■ ^ 4^ v^;:?!- *%. # ' 






-bv*- :^^-- Vo*' :^^: %v*^ 







( 


' ■ V:;>jii 


! 






■ '^y ■■• ni^'ii 


1 


:::;::-:| 




■■.■■■; .. ■iMiil 




■ . ■ ■•■■''•11! 




^ 'W 




' , , :;UJi! 

'■ : ■■■; jiif 




M 


' 


I^H 




::-^'^':: : -;:ii! 




:'^ ■■ 'iiii;- 




;:•■•'.: ;;:;::=;|| 





